CBON vs. KHYB

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CBON (VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF) and KHYB (KraneShares Asia Pacific High Income Bond ETF) are both Emerging Markets Bonds funds - CBON tracks the ChinaBond China High Quality Bond Index while KHYB tracks the JP Morgan Asia Credit Index Non-Investment Grade Corporate Index.. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CBON returned 2.17%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for KHYB. At a 0.18 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CBON charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for KHYB.

Performance

CBON vs. KHYB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON) and KraneShares Asia Pacific High Income Bond ETF (KHYB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CBON achieves a 4.99% return, which is significantly higher than KHYB's 2.54% return.

CBON

• 1D: -0.03%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 4.99%
• 6M: 5.50%
• 1Y: 8.46%
• 3Y*: 5.19%
• 5Y*: 2.17%
• 10Y*: 2.99%

KHYB

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: 0.82%
• YTD: 2.54%
• 6M: 2.56%
• 1Y: 9.47%
• 3Y*: 8.35%
• 5Y*: 0.15%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CBON vs. KHYB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF	4.99%	5.46%	1.85%	2.92%	-7.99%	5.93%	12.01%	2.67%	-0.28%
KHYB KraneShares Asia Pacific High Income Bond ETF	2.54%	9.59%	10.79%	3.50%	-10.15%	-12.32%	2.00%	8.87%	0.45%

Correlation

The correlation between CBON and KHYB is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.19
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.24
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.22
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 28, 2018	0.18

Return for Risk

CBON vs. KHYB — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CBON

CBON Risk / Return Rank: 89
CBON Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
CBON Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
CBON Omega Ratio Rank: 86
CBON Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
CBON Martin Ratio Rank: 93

KHYB

KHYB Risk / Return Rank: 78
KHYB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
KHYB Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
KHYB Omega Ratio Rank: 94
KHYB Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
KHYB Martin Ratio Rank: 63

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

CBON vs. KHYB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON) and KraneShares Asia Pacific High Income Bond ETF (KHYB). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	CBON	KHYB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.47	2.77	-0.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.76	4.29	-0.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.62	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.34	2.40	+3.95
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	23.59	10.74	+12.84

CBON vs. KHYB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CBON Sharpe Ratio is 2.47, which is comparable to the KHYB Sharpe Ratio of 2.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CBON and KHYB, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

CBON vs. KHYB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CBON drawdown since its inception was -14.13%, smaller than the maximum KHYB drawdown of -33.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBON and KHYB.

Drawdown Indicators

	CBON	KHYB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.13%	-33.63%	+19.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.34%	-3.97%	+2.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-4.56%	-5.44%	+0.88%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-14.13%	-32.72%	+18.59%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-14.13%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.46%	-0.58%	+0.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.97%	-9.65%	+5.68%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.36%	0.88%	-0.52%

Volatility

CBON vs. KHYB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON) is 0.64%, while KraneShares Asia Pacific High Income Bond ETF (KHYB) has a volatility of 0.88%. This indicates that CBON experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than KHYB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CBON	KHYB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.64%	0.88%	-0.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.61%	3.08%	-0.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.44%	3.44%	0.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.92%	6.33%	-1.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.56%	5.70%	-0.14%

CBON vs. KHYB - Expense Ratio Comparison

CBON has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than KHYB's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

CBON vs. KHYB - Dividend Comparison

CBON's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.53%, less than KHYB's 8.13% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF	1.53%	1.66%	2.15%	3.01%	2.70%	3.05%	2.87%	3.87%	3.39%	3.33%	3.25%	2.78%
KHYB KraneShares Asia Pacific High Income Bond ETF	8.13%	7.59%	10.11%	15.55%	9.67%	6.22%	4.76%	4.86%	2.56%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CBON and KHYB in my portfolio?

CBON and KHYB have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CBON or KHYB?

KHYB has higher volatility (0.88%) compared to CBON (0.64%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CBON dropped -14.13% vs KHYB's -33.63%.

Which ETF is better, CBON or KHYB?

On 5-year performance, CBON leads with 2.17% vs 0.15% for KHYB. On fees, CBON is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, CBON has been the lower-risk option at 0.64%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CBON or KHYB?

Over the 5-year period, CBON has performed better with a 2.17% return vs 0.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CBON or KHYB?

CBON is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for KHYB.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CBON or KHYB?

KHYB has the higher dividend yield at 8.13%, compared with 1.53% for CBON.

What is the main difference between CBON and KHYB?

CBON tracks ChinaBond China High Quality Bond Index, while KHYB tracks JP Morgan Asia Credit Index Non-Investment Grade Corporate Index.. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and KraneShares. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for CBON and 0.69% for KHYB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KHYB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.77 vs 2.47), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.